Patterson film: Credit where credit is due

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I was asking bjb. Please note the question marks.

A question mark preceded by a comma and the word "right" typically denotes either a sarcastic question or an implicit assumption by the questioner of an affirmative response. Sometimes both.

So that means I don't need to expect an answer, right?

I wasn't sure in which vein you meant what you said, so I asked.

Now I don't know either.

Why don't you tell me?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
There certainly are photos of the foot that made the casts that Patterson and Gimlin cast in October, 1967.

In fact, we can clearly see the bottom of the feet in the photos.

Do we ever actually see the foot you speak of making the prints?

Been there with that lame and desperate line of questioning, counselor.

Oh and when I ask the question "Do we have the foot?" What I actually mean is....do we have an actual Bigfeet foot attatched to an actual Bigfeet that we have observed make a footprint?

That's not what you asked:

You don't have a picture of the the foot that (allegedly) made all these silly prints so what's your point?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Mad Hom wrote:

Analysis?? Seems to me that what you have is a conclusion (That Patty's melon is un-human) and now your just trying to prove it.

Actually...I said...

I'm still working on it, but at the moment it looks good for Bigfoot

That's not a "conclusion" yet. I'm working on drawing human-shaped head outlines inside the side profile outline of Patty's head.

We'll see what that shows.

Here's a quote from Mike Klein, posted on another forum today...interestingly enough....

The complete absence of a forehead on the Bigfoot is the most convincing fact in favor of its authenticity. It simply is not possible to fit a human skull inside that head without setting that head in the rear half ... with his eyes half a foot [??] back from the eye holes and then turn to the camera .... The revealing frame is frame 339, a true side profile of Patty's head.

 

[LAL]

Thanks for another generous helping of Spam Lu..

If it's too much for you to read, you can always ignore it. Are you afraid you'll learn something?

"The Definition of Spam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The word "Spam" as applied to Email means Unsolicited Bulk Email ("UBE").

Unsolicited means that the Recipient has not granted verifiable permission for the message to be sent. Bulk means that the message is sent as part of a larger collection of messages, all having substantively identical content.

A message is Spam only if it is both Unsolicited and Bulk.


- Unsolicited Email is normal email
(examples: first contact enquiries, job enquiries, sales enquiries)


- Bulk Email is normal email
(examples: subscriber newsletters, customer communications, discussion lists)




Technical Definition of Spam

An electronic message is "spam" IF:

(1) the recipient's personal identity and context are irrelevant because the message is equally applicable to many other potential recipients;

AND


(2) the recipient has not verifiably granted deliberate, explicit, and still-revocable permission for it to be sent.


Spam is an issue about consent, not content. Whether the UBE message is an advert, a scam, porn, a begging letter or an offer of a free lunch, the content is irrelevant - if the message was sent unsolicited and in bulk then the message is spam.

Spam is not a sub-set of UBE, it is not "UBE that is also a scam or that doesn't contain an unsubscribe link", all email sent unsolicited and in bulk is Spam.

This distinction is important because legislators spend inordinate amounts of time attempting to regulate the content of spam messages, and in doing so come up against free speech issues, without realizing that the spam issue is solely about the delivery method.


Important facts relating to this definition:

(1) The sending of Unsolicited Bulk Email ("UBE") is banned by all Internet service providers worldwide.

(2) Spamhaus' anti-spam blocklist, the SBL, used by more than 650 Million Internet users to reject emails identified as spam, is based on the internationally-accepted definition of Spam as "Unsolicited Bulk Email". Therefore anyone sending UBE on the Internet, regardless of whether the content is commercial or not, illegal or not, needs to be fully aware that (A) they will lose their Internet access if they send UBE and (B) they will be placed on the Spamhaus Block List (SBL) if they send UBE.


Various jurisdictions have implemented legislation to control what they call "spam". One particular example is US S.877 (CANSPAM 2004). Each law addresses "spam" in different ways, and as a consequence, often has different definitions of what they cover, whether they call it "spam" or not. Spamhaus uses the industry standard "unsolicited bulk email" definition which underlines "it's not about content, it's about consent". As such, arguments as to whether UBE messages are covered under CANSPAM or are compliant with CANSPAM, are entirely irrelevant."

http://www.spamhaus.org/definition.html

 

[LAL]

Chris Murphy mentioned one of the Russian scientists noted a detail on the filmed foot that matched a detail in a cast, confirming that was the foot that made the print.

 

[LAL]

By the way, Bob H has also passed a lie detector test that he was the man in the suit. Passing the lie detector test is not conclusive evidence, but if he had failed then even I wouldn't believe he was in the suit.

He refused to take a test to be administered by someone of a researcher's choosing.

Roger Patterson also took as lie detector test. And passed.

 

[LAL]

While you are at it, see if you can figure out why this Bigfoot has muscles shaped like donuts, a butt that is detached from the thigh, deltoids and pecs that don't follow the upper arm to the extent they should, breasts that don't really move like you would expect them to ( no bounce to speak of ) and hernia looking knots that just pop up out of nowhere ..

There has been a lot of discussion about the thigh hernia, but I just noticed these on the back of the thigh and calf ..

[qimg]http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/hernia2.gif[/qimg]

The standard dismissal is: " Must be light and shadow .. "


See, it's like this ..

Resembles real muscle . = Must be real, and proof it's a real Bigfoot .

Looks unnatural, like no muscle shape seen on earth .. = Must be light and shadow...


The bottom line is this ..

We know there are guys..

We know there are suits ..

We know guys can wear suits ..


We don't have a Bigfoot, much less one that looks like the subject of this film..


Guy in suit = 3
Bigfoot = 0

And all your points were thoroughly shot down on BFF, with pictures. Why not post the links?

Sasquatch = 3
SG= 0

 

[LAL]

I like your thinking!

It even gets better when you add in a couple of other bits:

We know people create bigfoot hoaxes..

We know that some of the "footprints" have been made by hoaxers..

5- zip

Must be a lot more yet.....

Next!

And we also know the media did a lot of reporting and very little research. The few hoaxes there have been have been transparent and quickly exposed.

This is Green on the Wallace family fiasco:

"John Green on Ray Wallace

This article was originally presented at the 2003 International Bigfoot Symposium by John Green. This is the final part of the presentation. Posted with John Green’s written consent.

<links snipped>

I have said that the events at Bluff Creek in the 1950s and 60s can best be dealt with at the panel discussion tomorrow, but there is one aspect that very much involves the present, and perhaps I can dispose of it now.

I am referring to the claim made last year by his family that the late Ray Wallace the contractor on the road construction job where the first “Bigfoot” track was cast, made those footprints by walking around wearing a pair of wooden feet.

Had the first newspaper to carry the story behaved responsibly, and asked the Wallaces to demonstrate that they could duplicate those tracks with the wooden feet that they displayed as proof, that story would never have been printed. Instead it was treated as revealed truth, and it was republished and broadcast all over the world, with some wonderful embellishments.

One newspaper quoted a Wallace nephew saying that Ray had sent younger members of the clan out to make all of the big tracks that have been reported all over the continent. Others took a mention of Ray making movies of his wife in a fur suit and twisted it to include the Patterson movie.

Even the newspaper in Eureka, which had printed the original stories that introduced “Bigfoot” to the world, got on the bandwagon with a yarn about how the publisher at the time had known all along it was a Ray Wallace hoax.

It was a totally irresponsible performance by the media, and frankly a lot of people involved in Bigfoot research weren’t any better. Their reaction might be summed up as: “Okay, Ray Wallace faked the Bluff Creek tracks but we have other tracks that are genuine.”

They didn’t bother to find out, any more than the media did, whether the Wallace claims were true, and seemed perfectly willing to discard as evidence tracks that are the most thoroughly investigated and best authenticated of any that have ever been found.

The current Wallaces actually don’t show any sign of knowing much about the Bluff Creek tracks and may even believe that what they are saying is true, although one of them told Rick Noll that his father never actually said he had faked the tracks, they just grew up knowing he had.

The wooden feet that they showed the media, as you can see in the full-size photos of them on display here, do not match the original “Bigfoot”. They do appear to be attempts to duplicate the casts made by Bob Titmus of the different set of tracks he found on a Bluff Creek sandbar, but one of them is so crudely carved that they would not likely fool anybody.

I expect those feet were just made to see whether tracks could be faked with them, something that probably, like myself, some of you have also tried. The answer, of course, is that you can make passable tracks in flat ground if it is soft enough, but in firm materials or up and down slopes, forget it.

Some of the original tracks were in very firm materials, and some went up and down steep slopes. This museum has had an offer in circulation for several months now of $100,000 for anyone who can show how they could have been faked.

So far there is no sign that any Wallace cares to try for the money, but perhaps they haven’t heard of it. The same editors that swallowed whole their nonsensical story refused to believe a real one. Priding themselves, I suppose, on not falling for a publicity stunt, they gave the $100,000 offer no publicity at all.

Granted that the $100,000 was put up in an attempt to get publicity, since all other attempts to get the media to counteract the damage they had done had failed, but it is a genuine offer. The first person who can demonstrate how the Bluff Creek tracks could have been faked will be paid $100,000. Tomorrow, you when you hear the people who were involved at the time describe what they observed; I think you will agree that there is no cause for concern that the money will ever be claimed.

What is the story about Ray Wallace? I never met him, because he was never around Willow Creek the times I was here, but I was told early on about his reputation as a practical joker, and in later years I got occasional letters and phone calls from him.

According to newspaper stories he was pretty upset in 1958 about people suggesting he had faked the tracks, pointing out, undoubtedly correctly, that the whole thing was interfering with his contract and costing him money.

It wasn’t long, though, until he began to try to get in on the action, telling outlandish tales about his adventures with Bigfoot. He even tried to sell Tom Slick a movie of Bigfoot he that claimed to have taken. I wasn’t there, but I was told that Ray asked for $10,000 and wouldn’t show Tom the film until he had the money.

We had learned by then that Tom could be very gullible at times, but that wasn’t one of the times, so we never knew what would have happened if he had agreed to pay.

We thought then that it was an attempted swindle, but having learned more of Ray’s reputation from people who knew him well and admired him I feel sure now that it would have turned out to be just one of his pranks.

A while later, after he had returned to the area in Washington where he came from, Ray got involved in selling very odd looking footprint casts, supposedly from the Mount Saint Helen’s apes. I never heard that he had casts from Bluff Creek, and I’m sure he never claimed publicly that he had faked the tracks there; because he would certainly have been called on to prove it.

To give you something of the flavor of the man, I’ll quote a couple of passages from of his letters.

In 1961 he wrote to the Klam-ity Kourier, here in Willow Creek, as follows:

Big foot used to be very tame, as I have seen him almost every morning on my way to work… I would sit in my pickup and toss apples out of the window to him. He never did catch an apple but he sure tried. Then as he ate the apples I would have my movie camera clipping off more footage of him… I have talked to several movie companies about selling my movies which would last for three hours. The best offer I’ve had so far is $250,000.

A letter to me in April 1979, included the following:

… everyone says who has heard Big Foots screams in northern California, before all the Big Foots were killed and hauled down the Klamath River in a tug boat and out into the ocean 12 miles to where there was a small ship anchored in international waters and frozen into a block of ice and then transported to Hong Kong and sold, so now there aren’t any more left in northern California, or is there if they are being let out of flying saucers.

Everything Ray did was so transparently bogus that it seemed obvious he was just having fun. It is hard to imagine he expected his yarns to be believed, and although some writers back East swallowed the bait I don’t know of anyone involved in the sasquatch search in the West who took him seriously or felt that he was causing any sort of problem.

Ironically, he didn’t fool people on a grand scale until he wasn’t around to enjoy the joke, and unfortunately when it did happen it did real harm.

We will never know the full extent to which people or projects that could have made valuable contributions in this field have turned away or been turned down because the media fell for this silly story, but we do know of enough examples to establish that the effect will be substantial and long-lasting. Sasquatch hunting, however, has always been three steps forward, two steps back, so we will just take our lumps and carry on, undeterred.

In that vein I would like to close with one of my favorite memories from the days when Rene Dahinden and I were pioneers in this strange pursuit. We had been on a radio phone-in show for a couple of hours, back in 1963, when a man called in and said something like this:

“Don’t you idiots realize that there are two hundred million people in North America and you are the only two who take this stuff seriously.”

I don’t remember the caller’s exact words, but Rene’s reply still rings in my ears:

“Mister, there are two hundred and twenty million people in North America, and every bloody one of them is wrong!”

There may be an extra hundred million of them today, but there are also a lot more of us, and we are making real headway—so carry on.


I thought that I would sum up this piece by John with a quote from him:

"I will almost certainly die without it being solved, as has happened to so many of my friends. But I don’t regret the time I spent on it." - John Green"

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/john-green-on-ray-wallace/

 

[Beleth]

So that means I don't need to expect an answer, right?

What you expect or not expect is not for me to decide. You should have your expectations set in advance of asking the question.

Now I don't know either.

Why don't you tell me?

If you don't know why you asked a question, there is nothing I, being neither a psychologist nor a mind reader, can do to help you.

 

[Beleth]

If it's too much for you to read, you can always ignore it. Are you afraid you'll learn something?

"The Definition of Spam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The word "Spam" as applied to Email means ...

(emphasis mine)

But since we are not talking about e-mail, this definition is moot.

Spam as applied to this forum is something entirely different, and is covered by Rule 6 of the Registration Agreement which you agreed to when you joined this forum.

 

[SweatyYeti]

bjb wrote:

Remember the face on Mars?

Seen the square remains on Mars?

 

[RayG]

If it's too much for you to read, you can always ignore it. Are you afraid you'll learn something?

That's not the point. In addition to consuming far more bandwidth than is necessary, it's considered bad Netiquette to quote the entire text of something when the relevant portion will suffice. (Kinda like reciting an entire chapter from a book when a single sentence or paragraph would have been enough.)

As indicated here, "Users that post repeated, unnecessary messages, often for the sake of humor, are considered spammers."

This site points out:

Keep your communications to the point. Few people like reading text on a computer screen. Also some people still pay for Internet access by the hour. The longer it takes to read your messages, the more it costs them. This is true whether you send e-mail or post messages to a newsgroup or a mailing list.

When reading line after line of your quoted text, it's sometimes hard to tell exactly what your point is.

The word "Spam" as applied to Email means Unsolicited Bulk Email ("UBE").

There's the problem with your definition, this is a message forum, not email.

RayG

 

[Skeptical Greg]

And all your points were thoroughly shot down on BFF, with pictures. Why not post the links?

Sasquatch = 3
SG= 0

I have linked to my discussions often, but just in case..

Posts by Skeptical Greg at BFF

Topics Started by Skeptical Greg at BFF



Shot down ?

Well, if " must be light and shadow " = " shot down " ..

Then I am surely busted ..


I've made a mistake or two, and have never had a problem admitting it ..

Unlike some other people, who are so clueless to begin with and have no idea
they have made a mistake, no matter how much their face is rubbed in it..

On the other hand, people who have little to offer besides the ramblings of others, don't run the risk of making their own mistakes; they can just finger their source as the problem...


Why don't we talk about you accusing me of doctoring images, just because you don't have a clue about film, video or any of the science behind what you are looking at ?

 

[William Parcher]

Posts by Skeptical Greg at BFF

Topics Started by Skeptical Greg at BFF

Endless blah-blah-blah posted by Skeptical Greg at BFF that will never cause a Bigfoot believer to stop believing, nor cause a skeptic to doubt more than they already do.

 

[LAL]

There's the problem with your definition, this is a message forum, not email.

RayG

I've given the definition(s) of spam to Greg many times. By no definition is quoting blocks of text "spamming". For whatever good it will do, I wanted to include all the definitions. I suppose posting a definition of "spam" is "spam" by his definition too.

There's an Ignore feature on this board. Anyone not wanting to read what I have to say, or the considered opinions of those I quote, are free to use it. Or they can do what I do when I see long, repetitive, ill-informed posts, with or without caps- move on to the next.

 

[Mad Hom]

Mad Hom wrote:


Actually...I said...


That's not a "conclusion" yet. I'm working on drawing human-shaped head outlines inside the side profile outline of Patty's head.

We'll see what that shows.

Here's a quote from Mike Klein, posted on another forum today...interestingly enough....

Yeti Sweater!?!? You don't get it do ya? I'm saying your conclusion is already drawn in your head...you want Patty's melon to be unhuman...now you just have draw a head in the outline of her coneheaded skull that fit's your predetermined Bigfoot Apologist conclusion. By saying it's looking good for Bigfeet you reveal your Pro-Bigfeet slant going into the process. Your analysis therefore means .........not much.

 

[LAL]

I have linked to my discussions often, but just in Why don't we talk about you accusing me of doctoring images, just because you don't have a clue about film, video or any of the science behind what you are looking at ?

We can't talk about that because I did not accuse you of doctoring images. That's the spin you put on it. I was going to add a few WTFs to the post, but thought better of it. I don't need a warning on the BFF.

I was taken aback because I thought you were going to bring up the finger. I was somewhat at a loss for words on this one; it was so absurd, it floored me. I didn't see lines on my captures because they weren't there. I wasn't able to check the main body of LMS until I was able to view it and Step Forward all the way through the section. No, I'd never noticed lines flicking by on one frame (two steps on the DVD) while watching LMS.

I don't know much about photography, which is why I started a thread. DDA does. He was a professional, he knows Green personally, he said the lines are scratches and stated how they occurred. A former projectionist said essentially the same thing. Yet you still claim someone drew on a 1.66mm figure. There's no point in arguing with you.

As to calling you a liar, no I did not. However, I demonstrated it on the Brian Smith thing.

You can be pretty indimidating with your pseudo intellectualism, but I saw through you months ago. All your cherry picking has amounted to nothing but a pile of cherries, IMO.

I apologized for thinking you were a kid still living with his parents because of your immature way of posting (assuming that's not the case) and that's the only apology you'll get from me.

You may now go back to calling me "obtuse".

 

[LAL]

(emphasis mine)

But since we are not talking about e-mail, this definition is moot.

Spam as applied to this forum is something entirely different, and is covered by Rule 6 of the Registration Agreement which you agreed to when you joined this forum.

Rule 6 states "You will not "spam" or "flood" the Forum."

Spamming a forum means posting the same message on a thread multiple times or on several threads on the same forum. Some forums have a rule about how many times that can be.

Since I have never done this, I am not guilty of breaking rule 6.

 

[carcharodon]

Why don't we talk about you accusing me of doctoring images, just because you don't have a clue about film, video or any of the science behind what you are looking at ?

Why should we talk about something that didn't occur? I have been to the threads in question on BFF and LAL did not accuse you of doctoring images anywhere.

 

[LAL]

Yeti Sweater!?!? You don't get it do ya? I'm saying your conclusion is already drawn in your head...you want Patty's melon to be unhuman...now you just have draw a head in the outline of her coneheaded skull that fit's your predetermined Bigfoot Apologist conclusion. By saying it's looking good for Bigfeet you reveal your Pro-Bigfeet slant going into the process. Your analysis therefore means .........not much.

A human skull does not fit into the head. There's too much slope to the forehead.

Gif by soarwing. Discussion here:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=16736&view=findpost&p=357370

Your lack of analysis therefore means .........not much.